Public Sector Grievance Arbitration: Structure and Administration

Bohlander, George W.

doi:10.2190/b9r9-qtmy-vdrg-lv22

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only Lewin and Peterson (1988) focus specifically on explaining the time to grievance settlements, and as already noted they found several grievance procedure characteristics and union and management policies related to time to achieve settlement. Bohlander (1992) surveyed public sector employers and they reported that scheduling conflicts and the requirement of additional investigation were given as the most common reasons for extensions on time limits in grievance procedures. It seems only appropriate that further research should focus on explaining the sources of delay and the reasons for the increasing delay over time.…”

Section: Grievance Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grievance Procedure Research: A Review and Theoretical Recommendations

Bemmels

Foley

1996

Journal of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review focuseson the grievance procedure research published in the past decade with specific attention on the application (or lack thereof) of social science theory to grievance research. The review concludes that the theoretical grounding of recent grievance research has improved over the earlier research, but remains quite inadequate. Recommendations on the direction that grievance research should take in the future to further improve on the theoretical content of grievance research are provided. It is argued that theory in grievance research should advance at two levels: the comprehensive systems approach, and the application of specific social science theories to narrower aspects of the grievance process.A common criticism of grievance procedure research is the lack of theoretical grounding for much of the research done prior to 1985. Several earlier reviews of the grievance literature raised the challenge of improving on the theoretical aspects of grievance research. This review focuses on the grievance procedure research published in the past decade with specific attention on the application (or lack thereof) of social science theory to grievance research. We also make recommendations on the direction that we feel grievance research should take in the future to further improve on the theoretical content of grievance research.

show abstract

Section: Grievance Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grievance Procedure Research: A Review and Theoretical Recommendations

Bemmels

Foley

1996

Journal of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From management's point of viev^^, arbitration may seem to be a more promising alternative than yielding or compromising on these issues (Coleman, 1988). From the union's position, taking discharge cases to arbitration may avoid a claim that the union breached its duty of fair representation (Bohlander, 1992). As such, the union may be obligated to pursue any discharge or serious discipline case through all levels of the grievance process.…”

Section: Disciplinary Cases In the Public Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, employers are unfamiliar with the patterns of case resolutions-in what areas is the grievant or the organiza tion more likely to win, lose, or reach some compromise (Mesch & Dalton, 1992). This lack of awareness may be particularly unsetding given that one recent study found almost 23 percent of filed grievances in the public sector resulted in a demand for an arbitration hearing (Bohlander, 1992).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Arbitration in Practice: A Profile of Public Sector Arbitration Cases

Mesch¹,

Shamayeva²

1996

Public Personnel Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to describe the types of cases typically brought to arbitration in the public sector and to analyze the pattern of case resolutions-in what areas is the grievant or management more likely to win, ose, or reach some compromise. Addihonally, compari sons of public versus private arbitration cases are examined. The authors analyzed 994 public sector arbitration cases from Labor Arbitration Reports: Dispute Settlements over a seven year period of time (1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991)(1992). Each case was coded according to the parties involved in the dispute, the type of case, and case resolution. The results of this study suggest that a wide variety of cases are brought to arbitration in the public sector and, depending on the type of grievance, the outcome is quite different. Furthermore, although more cases are found in favor of the union in the public sector rather than private sector, management in both the public and private sectors experience a higher winning percentage. Finally, the results indicate that significantly more termination and fewer suspension cases are brought to arbitration in the private than public sector.

show abstract

“…Lewin et al (1988) and others (Dilts, 1993;Pops, 1976;Stewart and Davy;1992) discuss the legal issues and structural and procedural characteristics surrounding the public sector grievance system and suggest that these factors have a substantial impact on the collective bargaining process and negotiation outcomes. Lewin et al (1988) and others (Dilts, 1993;Pops, 1976;Stewart and Davy;1992) discuss the legal issues and structural and procedural characteristics surrounding the public sector grievance system and suggest that these factors have a substantial impact on the collective bargaining process and negotiation outcomes.…”

Section: Grievance Arbitration In the Public Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the recent widespread practice of arbitration in the public sector, however, the empirical research in this area is weak (LaVan, 1990). This is particularly unsettling given that one recent study found that almost 23 percent of filed public sector grievances resulted in a demand for an arbitration hearing (Bohlander, 1992).…”

Section: Grievance Arbitration In the Public Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

Grievance Arbitration in the Public Sector

Mesch¹

1995

Review of Public Personnel Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines differences between public and private sector grievance arbitration outcomes. The research question addressed in this study is whether or not differences in win, lose, or compromise outcomes exist between the public and private sector and if differences exist regarding discipline cases. Archival data were analyzed from a total of 1127 public and 2822 private arbitration cases for the period 1987 through 1993. Contingency analyses were conducted to test all hypotheses. Results indicate a higher winning percentage and fewer discharge cases in the public as compared to the private sector. Additionally, fewer public sector cases result in long suspensions. The results are discussed in terms of hypothesized public-private differences. ver the past twenty years, much attention has been devoted to comparing public and private organizations (see Perry and Kraemer, 1983; Perry and Rainey, 1988; Rainey, Backoff, and Levine, 1976 for reviews of this literature). The literature suggests several theoretical and practical reasons for gaining a better understanding of these differences, including increasing our confidence of generalizablity of empirical research across settings (e.g., Perry and Rainey, 1988). This stream of research proposes several important distinctions between the two sectors in terms of their ex-ternal environment, organizational structure, incentive system, legal issues, managerial roles, and culture which need to be incorporated into both theory and practice.The early literature examining grievance models in public organizations also supports the distinctive nature of the public sector grievance process when compared to private organizations (e.g.

show abstract

Public Sector Grievance Arbitration: Structure and Administration

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Grievance Procedure Research: A Review and Theoretical Recommendations

Grievance Procedure Research: A Review and Theoretical Recommendations

Arbitration in Practice: A Profile of Public Sector Arbitration Cases

Grievance Arbitration in the Public Sector

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About